Hello all,
reading the list for a while it looks like all kinds of implementational
topics are covered but no basic user requests or talks are going on. Since I
have found no other list on vger covering these issues I choose this one,
forgive my ignorance if it is the wrong place.
Like many people
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:13:33 +0200
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephan von Krawczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > reading the list for a while it looks like all kinds of implementational
> > topics are covered but no basic user requests or talks
Hello Chris,
let me clarify some things a bit, see ...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:59:40 -0400
Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for this input and for taking the time to post it.
>
> > 1. filesystem-check
> > 1.1 it should not
> > - delay boot process (we have to wait for hours c
not be in btrfs:
>
> Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
>
> > - parallel mounts (very important!)
>
> as Andi said, you want a cluster or distributed fs. There
> are layered designs (CRFS or network filesystems) that can do
> the job and trying to do it in btrfs causes too many
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:15:13 -0400
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:01:36PM +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > Sure, but what you say only reflects the ideal world. On a file service, you
> > never have that. In fact you
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:09:40 +0200
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While that's true today, I'm not sure it has to be true always.
> I always thought traditional fsck user interfaces were a
> UI desaster and could be done much better with some simple tweaks.
> [...]
You are completely ri
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:59:26 +0200
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephan von Krawczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Yes, we hear and say that all the time, name one linux fs doing it, please.
>
> ext[234] support it to some extent. It has so
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:34:20 -0400
jim owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hearing what user's think they want is always good, but...
>
> Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> >
> > thanks for your feedback. Understand "minimum requirement" as "minimum
&
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:31:37 -0400
Ric Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> If you have remapped a big chunk of the sectors (say more than 10%), you
> should grab the data off the disk asap and replace it. Worry less about
> errors during read, writes indicate more serious errors.
Ok, n
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:49:43 -0400
Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 18:27 +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
>
> > > > 2. general requirements
> > > > - fs errors without file/dir names are useless
> > > >
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:15:45 -0400
Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 14:27 +0200, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:31:37 -0400
> > Ric Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > &
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:48:30 -0700
"Jeff Schroeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > NFS is a good example for a fs that never got redesigned for modern world. I
> > hope it will, but currently it's like Model T on a highway.
> > You have a NFS server with clients. Your NFS server dies, your backup
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:56:58 -0400
"Michel Salim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...]
> > Lets agree that the market for drives, arrays and related stuff is big and
> > contains just about any example one needs for arguing :-)
> > Nevertheless we probably agree that if john doe meets big-player a
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:35:55 +0200
"dbz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> concerning this discussion, I'd like to put up some "requests" which
> strongly oppose to those brought up initially:
>
> - if you run into an error in the fs structure or any IO error that prevents
> you from bringing the fs
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:26:11 +0800
"yanhai zhu" wrote:
> > so i can do btrfs-vol -r /dev/sdb while it`s being mounted, pull the disk ,
> > replace it with a bigger one, rescan-scsi-bus, mkfs.btrfs the new disk and
> ~~~
>
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:38:57 -0400
Chris Mason wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 18:10 +0200, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
> > > But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs.
> > > Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible.
> > >
> >
> > May I suggest the name "ZbtrFS" :
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:41:23 -0400
Chris Mason wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:51:41AM +, Mike Ramsey wrote:
> > I ran across this article "Testing Out The SSD Mode In Btrfs".
> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=btrfs_ssd_mode&num=1
> >
> > At first I was disappointed
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:38:37 +0200
Jens Axboe wrote:
> [...]
> It's easy to throw cache at the problem and make it faster. That's like
> shaving weight off a car. Might make it go faster, definitely wont make
> it safer.
Interestingly nobody talks about "the other end" of the ssd market. Ok, a c
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:09:44 +0100
Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> On Sunday 24 January 2010, Michael Niederle wrote:
> > I'm using btrfs with a kernel 2.6.32.2 (builtin) as the root file system of
> a
> > Gentoo Linux installation.
> >
> > While attempting to install the plt-scheme package a stra
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:59:57 +0100
Hubert Kario wrote:
> On Thursday 11 March 2010 08:38:53 Sander wrote:
> > Hello Gordan,
> >
> > Gordan Bobic wrote (ao):
> > > Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > > >On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> > > >>Are there options available comparable to ext
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:17:30 +
Gordan Bobic wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:31:03 +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski
> wrote:
> >> > > >On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Gordan Bobic
> >> > > >wrote:
> >> > > >>Are t
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:01:55 +0100
Hubert Kario wrote:
> [...]
> The _SD_standard_ states that the media has to implement wear-leveling.
> So any card with an SD logo implements it.
>
> As I stated previously, the algorithms used in SD cards may not be as
> advanced
> as those in top-of-the-li
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:39:05 +0100
Sander wrote:
> Stephan von Krawczynski wrote (ao):
> > Honestly I would just drop the idea of an SSD option simply because the
> > vendors implement all kinds of neat strategies in their devices. So in the
> > end
> > you cannot rea
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:07:40 +0100
Hubert Kario wrote:
> > [...]
> > If the FS were to be smart and know about the 256kb requirement, it
> > would do a read/modify/write cycle somewhere and then write the 4KB.
>
> If all the free blocks have been TRIMmed, FS should pick a completely free
> eras
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:00:17 -0500
Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:35:06PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:39:05 +0100
> > Sander wrote:
> >
> > > Stephan von Krawczynski wrote (ao):
> > > > Honestly I
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:00:08 +0100
Hubert Kario wrote:
> > Even on true
> > spinning disks your assumption is wrong for relocated sectors.
>
> Which we don't have to worry about because if the drive has less than 5 of
> 'em, the impact of hitting them is marginal and if there are more, the user
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:30:57 -0400
Chris Mason wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:00:08AM +, Lubos Kolouch wrote:
> > No, not stable!
> >
> > Again, after powerloss, I have *two* damaged btrfs filesystems.
>
> Please tell me more about your system. I do extensive power fail
> testing here
27 matches
Mail list logo
